MAYUR GHANSHYAM RAJGOR vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/13467/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240504922015)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET
ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 13467 of 2015

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================
MAYUR GHANSHYAM RAJGOR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================
Appearance:
MR SHIVAM MAJMUDAR for MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DJ BHATT(164) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR AMIT JOSHI for P B VELANI(7465) for the Respondent(s) No.
2
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 23/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 (the Code) is filed by the applicant praying to quash
and set aside the FIR being C.R. No. I-70 of 2015, dated 27.06.2015,
Page 1 of 12
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 16:01:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/13467/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240504922015)
registered with ‘B’ Division Police Station, Patan City, District:
Patan for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 468, 420 and
114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. Rule . Learned advocates for the respective respondents
waive service. Considering the controversy involved in the
matter, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties,
the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant
decided to purchase a residential premises at Patan for dwelling
purposes. In the year 2010, at Patan, (1) Ankit Mukeshbhai Suthar
(Mewada) and (2) Mukeshbhai Vitthalbhai Suthar (Mewada), both
residents of Shreyas Flats, Taluka & District: Patan, showed him
the Brochure, Non-Agricultural (NA) Permission Plan, and the
Development/Building Permission (Raja Chitthi) for a Residential
Housing Scheme. They represented that the land bearing Revenue
Survey No. 271, situated at Patan, was being developed under the
name of Sun Villa Bungalows. They agreed to sell
House/Bungalow No. 33 in the said scheme to for a total sale
consideration of Rs. 22,41,000/-. On 03/02/2011, the complainant
met Ankit Mukeshbhai Suthar (Mewada) and Mukeshbhai
Vitthalbhai Suthar (Mewada) at Patan, where the transaction for
the sale and purchase of House No. 33 at the aforesaid
consideration was finalized. Pursuant to the instructions of
Mukeshbhai Vitthalbhai Suthar (Mewada), an Entry/Receipt was
Page 2 of 12
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 16:01:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/13467/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240504922015)
drawn up by Ankit Mukeshbhai Suthar (Mewada). At that time,
the complainant paid an advance sum of Rs. 5,11,000/-, which was
duly recorded and endorsed by Ankit Mukeshbhai Suthar
(Mewada) in a personal diary. That, between 24.06.2011 and
30.10.2014, the complainant paid various sums periodically
totaling Rs. 14,20,000/- to the said accused persons directly as well
as through their authorized representatives, namely Vijay Mewada
and Mayur Ghanshyam Rajgor. Thereafter, on 30.10.2014,
Mukeshbhai Suthar executed a written Deed of Undertaking
(Bahedhari Lekh), acknowledging that a cumulative sum of
Rs.20,41,000/- had been received by them towards the sale
consideration up to that date; and the remaining balance of
Rs.2,00,000/- was to be paid by the complainant at the time of
execution and registration of the registered Sale Deed on or before
30.01.2015. Following the execution of the said Undertaking, the
complainant approached both accused persons, Ankit Mukeshbhai
Suthar and Mukeshbhai Vitthalbhai Suthar, at Patan, and offered
to pay the outstanding balance of Rs. 2,00,000/-, requesting them
to execute the registered Sale Deed in accordance with the terms of
the Undertaking. However, the accused persons acted evasively
and deferred the execution, asking the complainant to come after
two months. Upon the expiry of two months, when complainant
approached them again, they made another false pretext, stating
that the draft of the Sale Deed was under preparation and that
they would summon me once it was ready. On 15.03.2015, the
complainant visited their residence at Shreyas Flats, Patan. They
Page 3 of 12
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 16:01:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/13467/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240504922015)
failed to provide any satisfactory response. At that time, co-
accused Mayur Ghanshyam Rajgor was also present. The
complainant specifically asked them that all the monies paid were
his hard-earned savings tendered in good faith and legitimate
expectation of obtaining lawful title to the house. To that, Mukesh
Mewada explicitly threatened and told that neither will you get
the house, nor will you get your money back; you may do
whatever you please. Thereafter, on inquiry and search made at
the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Patan, it was discovered that the
accused persons had dishonestly and fraudulently sold and
conveyed House No. 33 to a third party vide Registered Document
No. 3970. Thus, the accused persons, committed criminal breach
of trust, cheating, and fraud against the complainant, for which,
the FIR in question came to be filed.
5. Heard, the learned advocates for the respective parties.
5.1 The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that
even from the bare reading of the FIR in question, no ingredients
of the offence alleged in the same are satisfied so far as the present
applicant is concerned. He submitted that it is a case of civil
transaction simplicitor for which, the complainant rather initiating
the civil proceedings, has filed the present FIR, which is nothing
but a pressure tactic and abuse of process of law.
Page 4 of 12
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 16:01:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/13467/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240504922015)
5.2 The learned advocate would further submit that even from a
reading of the FIR it would be clear that the main accused are
original accused Nos. 1 and 2 namely Ankit Mukeshbhai Suthar
(Mewada) and (2) Mukeshbhai Vitthalbhai Suthar (Mewada) who
had agreed to sale the House No. 33 in the scheme in the name of
Sun Villa Bungalows for a sale consideration of Rs.22,41,000/- for
which, part payment was also made as can be revealed from the
FIR itself and merely, because some of the amount was handed
over to the present applicant along with one Vijay Mewada, it
cannot be said that any offence, as alleged in the FIR, is made out
against the present applicant, inasmuch as, it is original accused
Nos. 1 and 2, who had accepted the receipt of the amount paid till
30.10.2014 and Rs.2 lakh were to be paid at the time of registration
of Sale Deed by 30.01.2015.
5.3 The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that no
allegation is levelled against the present applicant and whatever
the allegations are there, they are against the original accused Nos.
1 and 2, who had to execute the Sale Deed for the sale transaction
of the property in question. He submitted that save and except the
present applicant being representative of the original accused Nos.
1 and 2, no overt act or role has played or attributed to the present
applicant and accordingly, it is urged that continuation of criminal
proceedings against the present applicant would amount to abuse
of process of law and Court and hence, it is urged that this
application may be allowed and the FIR, impugned herein, may be
Page 5 of 12
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 16:01:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/13467/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240504922015)
quashed.
6. As against that, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the respondent – State as well as the learned advocate for the
respondent No. 2 would submit that whether the present applicant
has really siphoned off any money or not and not entered into
executing the Sale Deed is a question of investigation and should
be decided in a trial and thus, argued that at the very threshold, if
the FIR is quashed, complicity, if any, of the present applicant,
would not surface and thus, argued to reject this application.
6.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the
learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 submitted that as per
the settled law, inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
should be used sparingly and with a view to curb the abuse of
process of law. It is submitted that in the case on hand, a prima
facie case is made out against the applicant from the reading of the
FIR and hence, they requested that it is ultimately a matter of trial
after which, the truth could be churned out and hence, it is
requested not to entertain this application.
7. Heard, the learned advocates for the parties and perused the
material on record, more particularly, the FIR, impugned herein.
8. Prior to assessing the factual matrix on the touchstone of
criminal jurisprudence, it is apposite to reinforce the settled legal
position governing the scope, ambit, and limits of the inherent
Page 6 of 12
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 16:01:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/13467/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240504922015)
jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of the Code. The
jurisprudential parameters regulating the exercise of this
extraordinary power have been authoritatively catalogued by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a long line of precedents, chief among
them being the authoritative in the case of State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal [AIR 1992 SC 604] . Therein, Hon’ble Supreme Court
crystallized seven distinct, illustrative categories of cases where
judicial intervention under Section 482 of the Code or Article 226
of the Constitution is necessitated to secure the ends of justice and
clip any abuse of the process of Court. The relevant portion of
Paragraph 102 of the said judgment is extracted below:
“ 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could
be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
Page 7 of 12
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 16:01:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/13467/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240504922015)
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make
out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which
a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
8.1 Evaluating the present applications on the anvil of the
Page 8 of 12
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 16:01:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/13467/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240504922015)
principles enunciated in Bhajan Lal (supra) , this Court has to
determine whether the allegations in the FIR, even when accepted
at face value, satisfy the essential statutory ingredients of Sections
406, 468, 420 and 114 of the IPC. This Court must ensure that
criminal machinery is not permitted to degenerate into an engine
of harassment where liability under criminal law is completely
absent.
8.2 What is alleged in the FIR is that original accused Nos. 1 and
2, after having taken a substantial sum of money towards sale
consideration of the Bungalow No. 33, they did not execute the
Sale Deed. So far as, present applicant is concerned, the only
allegation against him is to the effect that he and one Vijay
Mewada acted as representative and an amount of Rs.14,20,000/-
which was paid to the accused Nos. 1 and 2, was through them
directly and thorough their representatives namely Vijay Mewada
and Mayur Ghanshyam Rajgor (present applicant) and original
accused No. 2 – Mukeshbhai Vitthalbhai Suthar (Mewada) had
issued an Undertaking in writing on 30.10.2014 that the
complainant had paid a substantial amount and rest Rs.2 lakh
were to be paid at the time of executing the Sale Deed, by
30.01.2015.
8.3 In the circumstance, whatever the amount has been received
and accepted, it is by original accused Nos. 1 and 2 for which, an
Undertaking in writing is also issued by them as referred to herein
Page 9 of 12
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 16:01:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/13467/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240504922015)
above and can be substantiated by the narration in the FIR itself.
The present applicant merely acted as a representative of the
original accused Nos. 1 and 2 and case, if any, is made out, it is
against them only and not the present applicant. Under the
circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that
continuation of criminal proceeding so far as present applicant is
concerned, would be an exercise in futility as no direct role is
attributed to him nor any overt act appears to have been done by
him.
8.4 At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the decision of the
Apex Court in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Another etc. v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Others Others, AIR 1988 SC
709 , wherein, the Court held as under:
“The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the
initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the
court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made
prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into
consideration any special features which appear in a particular case
to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to
permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the
court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the
opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and,
therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a
criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into
consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding
even though it may be at a preliminary stage. A case of breach of
trust may be both a civil wrong and criminal offence. But there
Page 10 of 12
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 16:01:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/13467/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240504922015)
would be certain situations where it would predominantly be a
civil wrong and may or may not amount to criminal offence. The
instant case is one of that type where, if at all, the facts may
constitute a civil wrong and the ingredients of the criminal offence
are wanting”. (Para 7)
9. In view of the distinct absence of the essential ingredients of
the offence alleged against the present applicant in the FIR in
question, forcing the applicant to endure a full-fledged criminal
trial, would be an exercise in futility, more particularly, the facts
on hand constitute civil wrong lacking ingredients of afore-stated
offences.
10. In fine , the application succeeds and is allowed, accordingly.
FIR being C.R. No. I-70 of 2015, dated 27.06.2015, registered with
‘B’ Divsion Police Station, Patan City, District: Patan for the
offence punishable under Sections 406, 468, 420 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 with all consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed and set aside qua the
present applicant, only. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
10.1 It goes without saying that observations made herein above
are purely for decision this application for quashing qua the
present applicant, which shall have no bearing on any pending
litigation relating to the subject matter.
Page 11 of 12
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 16:01:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/13467/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240504922015)
10.2 Direct service is permitted.
[ P. M. Raval, J. ]
hiren/SB/1/1(2ndmatter)tss231026
Page 12 of 12
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 16:01:27 IST 2026